Posted on 12/02/2004 10:24:53 PM PST by snippy_about_it
|
are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support. The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer. If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions. We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.
|
Been there, done that. Garryowen!
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: Sir, Custer was a pussy. You ain't.
I just loved the SMG in We Were Soldiers.
I hope everyone has a great weekend. We'll be decorating for Christmas; I guess that's still OK to say in Denver.
Evening CholeraJoe.
Sam Elliott was great as Sergeant Major Plumley!
Well, we know it's still okay to say at the Foxhole. Have fun.
Hiya CJ.
I hate running in circles.
Did the inzpektor ever show up?
Units of Action
Branch Indeterminate Generic Combat Modules
Now there's two terms only a military bureaucrat could love.
Bitty Girl is cutting her first tooth. And she's mobile
And life as you knew it is over.
He(Custer)divided his command
Never a good idea. Lee got away with it a couple of times, but then look at who he was fighting, McClellan.
Ya. He showed, the building passed. Now we wait for the county fire marshall, then the city to give us our license to operate.
Meanwhile home office called and said it was okay to open before the fixtures arrive if we want to get in some Christmas sales. We're against it, especially Sam but we could make it fun and just let everyone know there is more 'decorating' to come. We're thinking real hard about it.
LATE IN 1875 an order went out from President Ulysses S. Grant in Washington to the various hostile Indian tribes that they were to report to reservations and Indian agencies no later than 31 January 1876. The Cheyenne and Sioux tribes disregarded the order and as a result the Yellowstone Expedition set out on 17 May 1876 from Fort Abraham Lincoln in the Dakota Territory under the command of Brigadier General Alfred H. Terry. The purpose of the expeditionary force was to find Chief Sitting Bulls encampment and to bring him to heel. Normally Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer would have led the entire expedition himself but he had incurred the displeasure of President Grant and was only allowed to accompany the expedition at the insistence of General Terry.
General Terrys force planned to meet up with a force from Fort Ellis, Montana under Col. John Gibbon and a second force from Fort Fetterman, Wyoming commanded by General George Crook. The overall plan was to trap the Indians in a three-way pincer. General Crook became involved in a disastrous battle of his own and failed to appear at the pre-arranged meeting place. General Terry decided to ride with Col. Gibbon who was in charge of a heavy Gatling gun (an early machine-gun) division. He gave Lt. Col. Custer explicit instructions to lead the Seventh Cavalry up the nearby Rosebud River to arrive no sooner than 26 June to allow Gibbons troops, slowed by the Gatling Gun Division, time to take up their positions.
Custer paid little heed to General Terrys instructions and soon after departing up the Rosebud, headed directly for the valley of the Little Big Horn making forced marches late into the night and starting again before dawn. With his Seventh Cavalry troopers trail-weary and his horses exhausted, Custer reached the valley early in the afternoon of 25 June and made plans to attack the Indians immediately. Custers Indian scouts warned him that Sitting Bulls camp was too large for him to take on with his small troop but Custer thought that his Seventh Cavalry could whip any Indian war party. Custer divided his troops into three separate commands placing 125 men under Captain Benteen with instructions to move towards the foothills and fight any Indians that he found. A second battalion under Major Marcus Reno was sent to engage the Indians in the village across the Little Big Horn with Custer to follow up with his battalion and provide whatever support was needed.
Custer received confirmation that the Indian camp was indeed very large and stretched for three miles along the banks of the Little Big Horn. When Captain Renos battalion engaged the Indians across the river, Custer received intelligence that the Indians were escaping towards the other end of the valley and rode his battalion hard to head them off. Approaching the other end of the Indian village on the banks of the Little Big Horn, Custers 264 troopers ran headlong into Crazy Horse and Sitting Bulls forces, estimated at 3,000 strong.
Sitting Bull himself did not fight but directed the Indian forces, many of whom were equipped with repeating Winchesters while the Seventh Cavalry troopers only had single shot carbines. The Indian forces charged head on and then flanked Custers battalion and slaughtered them to a man. The troopers became so desperate during the fierce half-hour engagement that they shot their own horses to act as shelters. They were however able to inflict severe casualties on the Indians. George Armstrong Custers body was found on the pinnacle of a hill where he had made his last stand, the flag of the Seventh Cavalry flying over him.
Part of the above account of the battle of the Little Big Horn is from an article appearing in the Leavenworth Weekly Times of 18 August 1881 and is a rare eyewitness account by Sioux Chief Crow King.
Custer behaved as an Army of One and consequently got himself and over two hundred others killed.
Webster's suggests hubris was first used in 1884 but the Oxford Unabridged shows Gladstone's use of "hubristic" in 1831. The definition in Webster's is fascinating for its hook: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution".
Custer ignored his orders (though the issue has been and will be debated past all caring).
He declined the 2d cavalry and the Gatling guns, the former was superfluous, the latter would be impediment.
He was informed of the 3,000 opposing his 264--so he was simply mad in his persistence.
General Douglas MacArthur may have dismissed intelligence reports of massing ChiCom troops, but he knew a hawk from a handsaw. He wanted to provoke them and nuke them--Truman wanted to "contain" them.
RECALL OF GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR (1951)I want to talk plainly to you tonight about what we are doing in Korea and about our policy in the Far East.
In the simplest terms, what we are doing in Korea is this: We are trying to prevent a third world war.
I think most people in this country recognized that fact last June. And they warmly supported the decision of the Government to help the Republic of Korea against the Communist aggressors. Now, many persons, even some who applauded our decision to defend Korea, have forgotten the basic reason for our action.
It is right for us to be in Korea. It was right last June. It is right today.
I want to remind you why this is true.
The Communists in the Kremlin are engaged in a monstrous conspiracy to stamp out freedom all over the world. If they were to succeed, the United States would be numbered among their principal victims. It must be clear to everyone that the United States cannot -- and will not -- sit idly by and await foreign conquest. The only question is: When is the best time to meet the threat and how?
The best time to meet the threat is in the beginning. It is easier to put out a fire in the beginning when it is small than after it has become a roaring blaze.
And the best way to meet the threat of aggression is for the peace-loving nations to act together. If they don't act together, they are likely to be picked off, one by one....
This is the basic reason why we joined in creating the United Nations. And since the end of World War II we have been putting that lesson into practice -- we have been working with other free nations to check the aggressive designs of the Soviet Union before they can result in a third world war.
That is what we did in Greece, when that nation was threatened by aggression of international communism.
The attack against Greece could have led to general war. But this country came to the aid of Greece. The United Nations supported Greek resistance. With our help, the determination and efforts of the Greek people defeated the attack on the spot.
Another big Communist threat to peace was the Berlin blockade. That too could have led to war. But again it was settled because free men would not back down in an emergency....
The question we have had to face is whether the Communist plan of conquest can be stopped without general war. Our Government and other countries associated with us in the United Nations believe that the best chance of stopping it without general war is to meet the attack in Korea and defeat it there.
That is what we have been doing. It is a difficult and bitter task.
But so far it has been successful.
So far, we have prevented World War III.
So far, by fighting a limited war in Korea, we have prevented aggression from succeeding and bringing on a general war. And the ability of the whole free world to resist Communist aggression has been greatly improved.
We have taught the enemy a lesson. He has found out that aggression is not cheap or easy. Moreover, men all over the world who want to remain free have been given new courage and new hope. They know now that the champions of freedom can stand up and fight.
Our resolute stand in Korea is helping the forces of freedom now fighting in Indochina and other countries in that part of the world. It has already slowed down the timetable of conquest....
We do not want to see the conflict in Korea extended. We are trying to prevent a world war -- not to start one. The best way to do this is to make plain that we and the other free countries will continue to resist the attack.
But you may ask: Why can't we take other steps to punish the aggressor? Why don't we bomb Manchuria and China itself? Why don't we assist Chinese Nationalist troops to land on the mainland of China?
If we were to do these things we would be running a very grave risk of starting a general war. If that were to happen, we would have brought about the exact situation we are trying to prevent.
If we were to do these things, we would become entangled in a vast conflict on the continent of Asia and our task would become immeasurably more difficult all over the world.
What would suit the ambitions of the Kremlin better than for military forces to be committed to a full-scale war with Red China? ...
The course we have been following is the one best calculated to avoid an all-out war. It is the course consistent with our obligation to do all we can to maintain international peace and security. Our experience in Greece and Berlin shows that it is the most effective course of action we can follow....
If the Communist authorities realize that they cannot defeat us in Korea, if they realize it would be foolhardy to widen the hostilities beyond Korea, then they may recognize the folly of continuing their aggression. A peaceful settlement may then be possible. The door is always open.
Then we may achieve a settlement in Korea which will not compromise the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
I have thought long and hard about this question of extending the war in Asia. I have discussed it many times with the ablest military advisers in the country. I believe with all my heart that the course we are following is the best course.
I believe that we must try to limit war to Korea for these vital reasons: to make sure that the precious lives of our fighting men are not wasted; to see that the security of our country and the free world is not needlessly jeopardized; and to prevent a third world war.
A number of events have made it evident that General MacArthur did not agree with that policy. I have therefore considered it essential to relieve General MacArthur so that there would be no doubt or confusion as to the real purpose and aim of our policy.
It was with the deepest personal regret that I found myself compelled to take this action. General MacArthur is one of our greatest military commanders. But the cause of world peace is more important than any individual.
The change in commands in the Far East means no change whatever in the policy of the United States. We will carry on the fight in Korea with vigor and determination in an effort to bring the war to a speedy and successful conclusion.
The new commander, Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway, has already demonstrated that he has the great qualities of military leadership needed for this task.
We are ready, at any time, to negotiate for a restoration of peace in the area. But we will not engage in appeasement. We are only interested in real peace.
Real peace can be achieved through a settlement based on the following factors:
One: the fighting must stop.
Two: concrete steps must be taken to insure that the fighting will not break out again.
Three: there must be an end to the aggression.
A settlement founded upon these elements would open the way for the unification of Korea and the withdrawal of all foreign forces.
In the meantime, I want to be clear about our military objective. We are fighting to resist an outrageous aggression in Korea. We are trying to keep the Korean conflict from spreading to other areas. But at the same time we must conduct our military activities so as to insure the security of our forces. This is essential if they are to continue the fight until the enemy abandons its ruthless attempt to destroy the Republic of Korea.
That is our military objective -- to repel attack and to restore peace.
In the hard fighting in Korea, we are proving that collective action among nations is not only a high principle but a workable means of resisting aggression. Defeat of aggression in Korea may be the turning point in the world's search for a practical way of achieving peace and security.
The struggle of the United Nations in Korea is a struggle for peace.
The free nations have united their strength in an effort to prevent a third world war.
That war can come if the Communist rulers want it to come. But this Nation and its allies will not be responsible for its coming.
We do not want to widen the conflict. We will use every effort to prevent that disaster. And in so doing we know that we are following the great principles of peace, freedom, and justice.
Source: Department of State Bulletin, 16 April 1951.
MacArthur wanted to nuke them. He claimed Truman was too cozy with Acheson and Hiss. Now we know Hiss was indeed a Soviet agent.
As for Truman's "containment" of North Korea and Communist China--we've got them right where we want them--fifty years later Clinton allowed DPRK to make nukes and Nodongs, and his Bernie Schwartz and Mike Armstrong gave PRC our missile guidance (with Wen Ho Lee's legacy code and warhead design downloads thrown in for good measure).
Truman's love of the UN has also worked well--Kofi helped Jacque and Saddam with the arms trade still used against our troops.
Exciting Times!
Speaking of time, it's bedtime for Bonzo.
Custer behaved as an Army of One and consequently got himself and over two hundred others killed.
Excellent! I hate that slogan.
Thanks for posting Truman's "reason" for recalling MacArthur. Containment doesn't work, defeat your enemies when you get the chance and end it early. It'll cost less in the long run rather than leting a situation fester for decades.
A legacy they should pay for.
Goodnight Bonzo.
BTTT!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.